Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Have the Enviromentalist's Gone Too Far?

BigHornyRam

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
433
Location
T Falls, MT
Judge orders stoppage after environmentalists sue

On orders from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, the Lolo National Forest on Monday shut down all work - including logging, road repair and tree planting - on thousands of acres burned during the 2000 wildfire season.

But forest supervisor Debbie Austin said she will ask the judge to clarify his order, which granted the request of two environmental groups and enjoined the U.S. Forest Service "from proceeding on Lolo National Forest post-burn project activities affecting Trout Creek, Ninemile Creek, the Clark Fork River, Flat Creek and Big Blue Creek."




"At this point in time, we have to shut down all activities authorized under the record of decision," Austin said. "All work stops. But there will be a lot of conversation between our attorneys and the plaintiffs' attorneys and the judge over the next week."

Also yet to come is Molloy's full opinion, which was not attached to the order signed at the close of business Friday.

Nine timber sales were planned in the burned areas. Loggers already were at work on two sales, and Lolo forest officials were in the midst of negotiations with contractors selected for this summer's road and forest restoration projects.

And tree seedlings were ready for planting on 1,000 acres. "We already have the trees," Austin said. "If we can't plant them, they go to waste."

The judge's ruling brought an immediate and angry outcry from St. Regis, where Tricon Timber was already logging the Landowner salvage sale.

"To have environmental organizations litigate, close sales and destroy the economies and social fabric of small towns is absolutely despicable," said Pat Hayes of the Mineral County Community Foundation.

At Tricon, assistant manager Angelo Ververis said his mill laid off eight workers and reduced health benefits last week because of earlier, temporary restraining orders signed by Molloy. Tricon, he said, "was able to competitively and profitably work this sale because of a good mix of species, proximity to the mill and a sustainable bid price."

"Tricon has other sales contracted, but none have the optimum mix of conditions necessary for profitable operations," he said.

Spokesmen for the two environmental groups that brought the lawsuit - Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Sierra Club - insisted Monday that they have no interest in crippling small towns, but do intend to force the Forest Service to follow the law.

"We want to see the good work go forward," said Bob Clark, a conservation organizer at the Sierra Club's Missoula office. "We don't want to throw away the baby with the bath water. We just want new bath water."

Clark said about 2 million board feet of timber already has been cut on the Landowner sale, about half of the total. "They've already gotten a good amount of what they were awarded," he said. "And the mill itself is protected under the contract they signed with the Forest Service. They'll get their money."

Environmentalists filed suit against the Lolo forest saying the post-burn plan allowed logging on 3,000 acres of roadless national forest and would degrade water quality in streams already identified as "water-quality impaired" by the state of Montana.

"We have worked with the Forest Service since last fall to try and resolve some of these issues, and the Forest Service hasn't budged at all," Clark said. "They have chosen an alternative that dumps 50,000 to 100,000 tons of sediment in streams that were already in trouble."

Of particular concern, he said, are Ninemile and Trout creeks - as those streams are in areas to be heavily logged.

Molloy's ruling stopped work until the Montana Department of Environmental Quality sets "total maximum daily load" figures for all streams affected by the post-fire logging and rehabilitation. (The state has warned that it may not have TMDL standards for the Clark Fork Basin until 2007.)

"There's no threshold that the Forest Service can use to determine how much sediment can go into these streams," Clark said. "That's the real crux of the issue. If you don't know how much sediment a stream can handle, we feel the logging should be put on hold until there's a determination that these particular bodies of water are not going to be damaged.

"Without a threshold, you don't know that. But the Forest Service was going to log anyway. We are not going to let them break the law; they have to stay within the law."

"The Forest Service can create more jobs and save taxpayers' money by complying with the law and restoring this area rather than by breaking the law and building more roads," said Michael Garrity, executive director of Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

Austin, however, defended her decision and said state water-quality officials reviewed the post-burn work plan and gave it their approval.

"As long as we are implementing and monitoring the conservation practices we agreed to, the state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency believe we are meeting the intent of the Clean Water Act," Austin said.

The work does briefly increase the amount of sediment in nearby streams, she said, but in the long term, the work greatly reduces erosion and improves water quality.

"Our analysis showed that the major sediment-producing activities in this project were the restoration activities - not the logging," Austin said. "The timber harvest was producing a very minimal amount of sediment, because we were requiring heavy, heavy mitigation."

The alternative that washes the heaviest load of sediment into streams is the "no action" choice, she added. "And that's where we are now."

The post-burn decision included the removal of 287 miles of roads, upgrading or removal of 108 culverts, reclamation of three mines, weed control along 509 miles of backcountry roads and the "decommissioning" of 224 miles of poorly maintained forest roads.

The logging would have paid for some of the road restoration and removal, according to Austin.

Molloy denied the environmentalists' request for a work stoppage based on plans to log in areas that have no roads. The Sierra Club was disappointed by that piece of the judge's order, Clark said, but isn't sure what its next step will be.

"Our door is open," he said, "and solutions are out there. I think right now we are in a sit-and-wait, open-door type of position."

Reporter Sherry Devlin can be reached at 523-5268 or at [email protected]
 
Hmm...makes me wonder if these kind of stoppages can be avoided by bringing all the stakeholders to the table at the beginning?
 
The quotes are interesting from the article.
Quote#1 by the Pat Hayes of the Mineral County Community Foundation.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To have environmental organizations litigate...destroy the economies and social fabric of small towns is absolutely despicable <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He quickly jumps to playing the "way of life card" in the small towns.

Quote #2 by Bob Clark of the Sierra Club's Missoula office <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We are not going to let them break the law; they have to stay within the law."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While the Sierra Club's guy goes to the law books.

Judges are required to use the law, so it seems like a reasonable decision, and it seems somewhat temporary. The loggers should have been arguing how they were within the law, and not playing the "way of life" cards.

I don't care much either way on this one, as it does not impact any of my Steelhead or Salmon, so I can just be an impartial observer....
smile.gif

elkgrin.gif
er
 
1-Pointer,

It looks like the Sierra Club tried
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"We have worked with the Forest Service since last fall to try and resolve some of these issues, and the Forest Service hasn't budged at all," Clark said. "They have chosen an alternative that dumps 50,000 to 100,000 tons of sediment in streams that were already in trouble."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But sometimes the Forest Circus chooses not to listen to anybody but the judges, sometimes out of ignorance, some times out of genius.
wink.gif
 
But the fact still remain's that the main goal of these invironmental group's is to

"End commercial logging and logging - road constriction on fedreal public land's."

That is right off the Sierra clubs web site.
These org. see the only way to protect anything is to set the most restrictive regulation's and force people to be like them and see the outdoors from there stand point ------very limited use or no use.
Gone to far---yep!!!!
I agree with protection,I don't agree that ALL LOGGING and MOST USE is a bad thing.
["Rx for Healthy National Forests
Defend the public's right to be involved in the management of federal lands.

Protect the more than 60 million acres of still-roadless and wild forests from roadbuilding and other harmful activities.

End commercial logging and logging-road construction on federal public lands.

Restore damaged forests - improve water quality, replant trees and other native plant species, properly maintain or decommission old logging roads, recover depleted fish and wildlife species."]
 
I have freinds that work at Tricon, and it won't take much to shut the doors there, they be out of business soon without timber.

I'm all for holding those responsible for destroying the fisheries to the task. Let's sit back and wait for sediments to flush into the creeks, and then sue the envirogroups for halting rehab mitigations upstream. After all, stopping erosion mitigations should be just as illegal as ignoring them.

ELKGNR, Pat Hayes isn't a logger, he's a county politician, and Clark says they tried to work with the Forest Circus, but they wouldn't budge. Yet did he say how much they were willing to give, or did the negotiation go along the line of, you'll do what we want or we'll sue you, ok we'll sue you.
 
Makes alot of sense doesn't it.
confused.gif


Stop the work that will help eliviate the sediment problem, and claim that you are trying to protect the land and/or water.
 
I think the Forest Circus and state of montaaaaana should develope a civil case and file a countersuit based on the same issue, but for the stoppage of work to reduce sedimentation of the creeks. Look they even stopped the closure and elimination of some roads. Well rounded fanatics, aren't they.
tongue.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
drool.gif
 
They will fight the elimination of forest roads in an effort to stop a timber sale. I thought these roads were the basis of the "evils" of logging.

These people would cut off their noses, if they thought it would spite their faces(and of course gather more contributions for the CAUSE $$$$$).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think you have the extreme enviromentalists figured out!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would agree with that. It good for both sides that a bell shaped curve has small tails...

Though they stated they were 'trying' to work with the USFS, what about the people that filed the lawsuit? I know of ONE ranch in No. UT that is not apart of the lawsuit filed by WWP because of their willingness to work WITH them in collecting data and monitoring.
 
1-Pointer,

I think you have it figured out. In the immortal words of Bob Dylan,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Copyright 1963, and was he ever right, and Topical on this one. Resource users can complain about the new rules, and waste the energy, or work within the new rules, and thrive.
elkgrin.gif
er
cool.gif
 
the seirra club SUCK`S BIG ONE`S! i have tried to contact them several times about the damage to the eco/riparian system`s down on arizona`s southern border, by thousand`s of illegal`s, my buddy e`mailed them a photo of sonoita creek w/ton`s of garbage in it ! we got no responce, they suck!
 
cjcj!!!
this tells me that there is no money in your grief, that would make perfect sence why this problem isn't getting the coverage it should...
 
cjcj, there are few organizations who will take on a dual-purpose issue like that. If if you presented it to them as damage caused by "illegals" then I'm not surprised they passed on it. They're not equipped, nor can they afford, to take on the issue of illegal immigrants; that's someone else's baby. That's not to say they wouldn't have blown you off anyway; they may very well be a bunch of pricks. But in this case it's understandable.
 
IT, sometimes your senility is obvious.
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif


rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif

We talk about today, and you flash back decades for rebuttal.

Go take your meds.
 
But Ten,

I just know that Bush and his oil buddies only want to distroy the enviroment.

The most ironic part of this article is where the enviro nut states that the mill will get its money. I thought a big reason they were opposed to logging on public land was because the forest circus shouldn't lose money on timber sales. Turns out they are just opposed to the logging. But hey, Ithaca can use it as reason to be against this project. After all, he is in favor of good logging projects as long as they don't cost the tax payer. Right Ithaca?

Paul
 
Paul, Right. Harvesting timber is an important tool in good forest management. Subsidizing timber companies to destroy wildlife habitat (including fisheries) is stupid. Right, Paul? Overharvesting timber beyond the sustainable level has destroyed local economies that were traditionally based on logging. The big subsidized corporations cut and ran. Right, Paul? They blame it on environmentalists, but the fact is they overharvested for short term gain. Ever figure that out, Paul? Ever read the NFMA, Paul?
 
Back
Top